Using the energy costs we determined in the previous blog post, we can now finalize this equation. One important thing to note is that we are doing this for 1kg of material over 1000 cycles.

As shown in the chart, silica gel is the most cost-effective material in low-humidity environments—and in most other humidity levels too. This means it captures water at the lowest overall cost compared to the other materials I tested. There was one exception: in powdered form and low humidity, blue silica gel came out slightly ahead.

Overall, the data is clear—silica gel, especially in beaded or powdered form, tends to be the most cost-effective option across a range of humidity levels. This contrasts with my earlier results, where activated alumina appeared to be the most cost-effective before factoring in energy costs. That difference highlights how important energy costs can be when evaluating the overall efficiency of an atmospheric water capture system.

I know this involves a lot of data, so if anything was unclear or you want me to break something down further, feel free to drop a comment below!